[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#118388: intent to NMU merlin-cpufire

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 09:22:11 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 03:25:29AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 03:54:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > I will NMU this package in four days unless:
> > why?
> Because it's my job to improve the build-percentage of the ia64
> architecture.  Note the address from which I am sending this message.
> > Plase spend your time on more serious bugs. I will fix this. Perhaps you do
> > not notice, but setting a 4-day ultimatum is not friendly. Personally I
> > consider it offensive for no good reason. So I hope we can stop that and get
> > back to normal communication. Thanks for the patch.

I know it's just a guideline, but anyhow...


8.1 Being Kind to Porters

8.2.2 When to do a source NMU if you are a porter

"[...] However, if you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the
 above guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations.
 Firstly, the acceptable waiting period - the time between when the
 bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU - is seven
 days for porters working on the unstable distribution.  This period
 can be shortened if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on
 the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter group. (Remember,
 none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon guidelines.)"


Reply to: